PDA

View Full Version : Bug: Daring Swordsman and Crush



nicosharp
04-27-2014, 09:59 AM
Scenario:
Played Daring Swordsman.
Attacked the next turn with him
He was blocked by a 3/3
pumped him with Crushing Blow (+2/+2 and Crush)
He became a 4/4.
What happened is only 2 Crush damage splashed.

The troop absorbed 3 damage from the Daring Swordsman before the damage doubled, then 1 damage with Crush hit the Champion and was doubled by the Daring Swordsmans ability.

What I believe should have happened is all 8 damage triggers on the 3/3 troop, and 5 splashes to the champion due to crush.

Xenavire
04-27-2014, 10:19 AM
We dont have official confirmation on how this works, but the theory is that it assigns damage before it doubles. So 3 damage to the troop, 1 to the champ, doubled to 6/2 which seems to correspond correctly to what you experienced.

nicosharp
04-27-2014, 10:27 AM
We dont have official confirmation on how this works, but the theory is that it assigns damage before it doubles. So 3 damage to the troop, 1 to the champ, doubled to 6/2 which seems to correspond correctly to what you experienced.

Either way this works, but it was a bit odd to me mathematically at first. I think this scenario is a lot different than a flock of seagulls or bird O plenty scenario.

Yoss
04-27-2014, 02:41 PM
I had posted this in Alan's Crazy thread and Alan acknowledged it without ever answering it. :(

Werlix
04-27-2014, 02:46 PM
I think the way double damage works is like this: "If damage would be dealt, deal double that amount instead.".

So in your example the 3/3 would have been dealt 3 and the champion would have been dealt 1, so instead the 3/3 was dealt 6 and the champion was dealt 2.

DanTheMeek
04-27-2014, 02:56 PM
I'd like to add that, if this isn't a bug and is working as intended for the reasons explained in this thread, it really badly needs further clarification on the card itself as this sort of interaction is, in my opinion at least, not obvious, nor intuitive. Having read the explanation on the forum it makes sense whats happening, but that's not what I would have thought would happen, so I can easily see this being a point of confusion for new players going forward. Not really sure what would be the best way to make it more obvious, but something really does need to be done. Again this is all assuming that this is working as intended and not just an unintended consequence of the way Daring Swordsman was programmed.

Yoss
04-27-2014, 02:59 PM
@werlix: If that's how it works (replacement effect), then that's what the cards should say. But they don't. They say "deal(s) double damage" which seems to indicate that you just take the attack power (or burn value) and double it. In the end I don't really care which way it works, but I care very much that the cards clearly state what they actually do.

dogmod
04-27-2014, 03:08 PM
You should all read the FAQ that is attached to your beta emails.. it is explained

Gwaer
04-27-2014, 03:09 PM
^ page 8 in the hex faq doc.

Though it would be nice if I could set quantity of damage dealt during my attacks, I don't think that would actually solve the problem of this card... but it would be nice.

Freebird_Falcon
04-27-2014, 04:02 PM
It's an awkward scenario when you're smashing an opponent's troop with extra damage that is going to waste when that is exactly what crush is intended to alleviate. If the lethal assignment took into account the doubling, it would help. You'd still have instances of extra damage but it'd be an improvement.

ossuary
04-27-2014, 04:11 PM
I honestly don't understand why they don't just have it apply damage multipliers as the final step before it hands it over to the attacker to assign damage to the blockers. That is the ONLY way that makes logical, logistical sense. Then you wouldn't have any of these problems. If a double damage dealer is a 4/4, then after all items on the chain have resolved and it's about to hand control over to the player to assign damage, it turns the 4 into 8, gives control to the player, and bam. Everything works perfectly from there.

Like I said in Alan's thread, if you handle it in ANY other way, it will fuck things up when they introduce a NEGATIVE damage multiplier (like half damage, for example). Imagine assigning lethal damage to all of your opponent's troops, and then AFTER that, it halves them all, so nothing is killed. Retarded.

The multiplier HAS to be applied after the chain is cleared and just before damage is actually assigned. It's the only way. The way they have it coded and described now is invalid. It ought to be fixed. :)

Gwaer
04-27-2014, 04:22 PM
For whatever reason they disagree. *shrug*

nicosharp
04-27-2014, 04:25 PM
^ page 8 in the hex faq doc.

Though it would be nice if I could set quantity of damage dealt during my attacks, I don't think that would actually solve the problem of this card... but it would be nice.
Thanks for the link to this Gwaer and dogmod. I guess leave it the way it is, was just not expected when it happened.

bactgudz
04-27-2014, 04:45 PM
It works exactly the same now as it does in mtg. Why make it work differently?

ossuary
04-27-2014, 09:12 PM
Because that way is stupid and nonsensical?

Malicus
04-27-2014, 10:14 PM
I personally like the way it is now and given that you can over assign damage there is no issue with a card which halves all damage, failure to play around it should be punished (assuming I am correct in remembering there is no ability to respond to the damage assignment step).

The assumption that it works like double strike is the only reason I see it being a problem which is only a problem if you are trying to port ideas and only a problem once - for me if a troop would crush for 1 and assigns double damage then it would crush for 2. If the intent was for daring swordsman to attack as if it had double power that could easily have been arranged.

Yoss
04-27-2014, 10:49 PM
I personally like the way it is now and given that you can over assign damage there is no issue with a card which halves all damage, failure to play around it should be punished (assuming I am correct in remembering there is no ability to respond to the damage assignment step).

Since we do not have control of damage assignment down to the pip level (order only), your bolded statement is false.

Malicus
04-27-2014, 10:54 PM
Since we do not have control of damage assignment down to the pip level (order only), your bolded statement is false.

Haven't run much crush so assumed it worked like magic. At any rate I would rather they implement that than adjust the nature of double damage.

Gwaer
04-27-2014, 10:55 PM
That's not to say that it will remain false though. There are very few scenarios that make sense why CZE would work their damage modifier as they have. Adding pip level damage assignment before negative multipliers is one. The other options I can think of are quite a bit worse. =\